« « Previous | Review: “THE SAUCE” Hot Sauce » »
The first ‘blind’ review to be published here on the HSB - though we did start the sauces at #101. These reviews take a bit more time to get together as multiple reviewers have to give their opinions, hence the out of order posting. Now on to the reviews:
Ingredients: Aged Cayenne Pepper, Black Pepper, Red Pepper, Garlic, Vinegar, Salt, Potassium Sorbate as a preservative
Reviewer #1: This sauce is deep red to almost brownish. There is a lot going on with this appearance. Lots of big pieces of cracked black pepper with tiny pieces of red pepper flesh. I can see a few seeds in the bottle but the “shaker” type top prevented them from pouring out onto my plate. 9 out of 10
Reviewer #2: Beautiful! This sauce has a nice deep red-orange color with little flecks of seeds, blackened skin, black pepper, and chile pepper pieces mixed all around. It comes in a standard 5oz. woozie bottle with a black plastic cap and a nice gold shrink band. I would like to know what the label looks like to see if it compliments and finishes the bottle well. All in all it’s a really nice looking sauce.
Reviewer #3: I was immediately drawn to the appearance of this sauce. The deep red color makes me anxious to taste it. The sauce is somewhat thick and glossy with lots of little bits suspended in it. There are little black bits that are either charred pieces, black pepper or both. I see a few chili seeds and a variety of other tiny particles that have been process into an unidentifiable condition.
8/10 – Deep Red
Reviewer #1: Thin like a pepper sauce but not overly processed like most “tobasco” type sauces. Lots of pepper skins and black pepper. Pouring this sauce out on a plate lets it spread out just like water would. This appears to be the intent of the manufacturer. 8 out of 10
Reviewer #2: The top of the bottle is plugged with an orifice reducer and I’m not sure why. Considering that the sauce has lots of seeds, blackened pieces of skin and bits of pepper mixed through, one would think that a reducer isn’t necessary. Yes, it is a thin sauce, but not that thin. Maybe the manufacturer likes to spend money on not essentials? I had to pull the reducer out in order to get a good pour. Once I did it spilled from the bottle nicely, but did not stick well to anything I put it on.
Reviewer #3: 7/10 – Restrictor Blocks Flow
Reviewer #1: Pungent from white vinegar, smokey and a slight sweet smell from what I believe is butter. I detect another smell that I do not like. It is a spice with an allspice smell or similiar to the smell of cloves and black licorice. I can’t get past this smell. 3 out of 10
Reviewer #2: Vinegar and smoke are the first two things to hit my nose. The smoke aroma is one that I’m not very fond of and I unfortunately find sauces from time to time. It seems to distract from everything else that’s in the bottle. I think it’s from aged peppers, in this case I’m guessing Cayenne? Aside from those three things, I really don’t detect much more than a bit of garlic, and that’s all. From the smell alone, ‘m thinking that this stuff would probably be pretty good in a Bloody Mary.
Reviewer #3: This sauce has a very familiar aroma. It reminds me of the smell of straight red jalapeño mash. There is a slightly fermented scent and the tanginess of vinegar comes through at the end. The aroma seems balanced and no one element overpowers the nose.
8/10 – Balanced
Reviewer #1: Identical in heat to Texas Pete or Frank’s red hot 5 out of 10
Reviewer #2: This sauce is not that hot, probably about a three on the HSB scale. I’d equate it to the heat level of Tabasco™ or Crystal™ hot sauce. It doesn’t slap you around or even cause a slight sweat, but it does leave a nice long mild burn in your mouth and throat.
Reviewer #3: 2/10 – Very Mild.
Reviewer #1: Here is where I have a problem. This sauce has a complexity to it but I can’t get past the clove/licorice/allspice smell. It tastes like it smells. I’m sure this is very appealing to most people, but I just can’t eat it. It appeared to have wing sauce all over it so I put it on a dozen naked wings and could only eat 2 of them. See picture. I just couldn’t stomach any more of the sauce to be objectionable with my review.
2 out of 10
Reviewer #2: Holy crap this stuff is salty! Salt is the first thing that hits you and the last thing left on your tongue, even after the so-so heat. The salt is followed-up by the vinegar, and then the peppers. That’s too bad. If this stuff had it’s flavors in reverse order and less salt, it may actually be good. Based on the flavor, I’m still guessing that the peppers are aged cayenne. It definitely tastes better than it smells, but unfortunately the overpowering salt just wrecks this stuff.
Reviewer #3: Welcome to vinegar world! The first flavor to hammer your tongue is the vinegar. It seems to calm down after the initial mouth slam and some of the other flavors kick in. Garlic and or onion seem to be the next flavor to hit the pallet. The garlic lingers on your tongue after the other flavors have subsided. There is a restrictor orifice on the neck of the bottle that seems to keep the particles from flowing out. This may be restricting some of the flavor as well. Off it comes.
6/10 – Tangy
Reviewer #1: I really liked the appearance and color and consistency. If it wasn’t for that smell/taste I would’ve given this sauce at least an 8 out 0f 10. I guess some people like brussel sprouts, liver and broccoli and some don’t. 3 out of 10
Reviewer #2: You won’t see me doing cartwheels over this stuff, and once I find out what it is, I certainly won’t be buying it. There are a ton of other sauces on the market that are very similar to it and much better. So without any unique characteristics to set it apart from the rest of the pack, it just falls into that less than memorable category and will be forgotten about before I can open another bottle. They say looks can be deceiving, and in the case of this sauce, that couldn’t be more true.
Reviewer #3: Salsa marinated rotisserie chicken was a great medium for this sauce. The tangy tartness cut through the richness of the rotisserie chicken. The sauce itself is quite mild so I ended up using about a quarter of the bottle. I suppose I would have used more if it were not for the tart flavor and I did not want to completely bury the mild flavor of the chicken. Overall sauce #104 MILD is a nice addition to your pantry. The tangy flavor makes it a good sauce for richer foods that need acid. While it is not a particular exciting sauce, I am looking forward to trying it on some eggs or an omelet. 6.2/10 – Average
So what did you think of this review style? Curious to know what sauce it is? Information on the sauce is available below the fold
HSB Blind Review #104: The Original Arkansas Cayenne Red Diamond Hot Sauce
Previous Review: Done on 7/15/07 by Anthony - Arkansas Cayenne Red Diamond Hot Sauce
Bottled by:
River City Spice Company
Blytheville, AR
870-763-6392
Chilehead Comments:
Posted by: HSB Reviewing Team - Categories: Uncategorized
Permalink: Review: Blind Hot Sauce Review #104
One year ago: General's Smokehouse HOT Slaw
Two years ago: Review: Uncle Dougie's Bang Zoom Sauce
- Related Posts:
- HSB Blind Reviews
- Review: Blind Hot Sauce Review #105
- Review: Blind Hot Sauce Review #101 Mild
- Review: Blind Hot Sauce Review #102 - Hot
- Review: Alberta Crude Special Reserve Hot Sauce
39 Comments »
Nice new format for reviewing. I think the multiple reviewer thing is really the only way to go as far as getting a really true feel for what a sauce is like and whether or not the reader finds it worthy of purchasing.
Multiple reviewers - thumbs up. (already a proven winner on other sites)
“Blind” review - thumbs down. (Blind the reviewers, not the readers. I could have done without the pics of the brown tape bottles. I want to know what I’m reading about. And not listing the reviewers? Whats up with that? Was everyone scared to be associated with the review? Come out of the closet guys. Thank goodness I found the pic of the product at the END, or I wouldn’t even have bothered reading the review.)
I LIKE the style of this review, and I don’t care who the reviewers are. I hope to see many more like this. Because the reviewers are nameless, I guess people can’t throw verbal bricks at them. They might even be makers, we just don’t know. I think this is the closest to an impartial judgement as has been presented by any of the sites.
Even I make some bad sauces, but I think that just because I make them, they will get a better rating. This style negates the “good ole boy rating where the “average sauces” get an 8.3 rating out of 10 instead of the 5 they deserve (well maybe 6.2). This is the way all legitimate contests are held, no one knows what is whos. If it hurts someones feelings, they shouldn’t make sauces. After all, you can’t please everyone…
I love it. Not only does it allow the reviewer to be completely honest withouut fear of offending the maker (since he/she will remain anonymous), but it also eliminates predjudice based on knowing the maker ahead of time as CaJohn alluded to. i do agree with DK to a point though about letting the reader see the label while reading the review. Then again though, how many of us would have continued to read the whole review of Arkansas Cayenne Sauce once we could tell it wasn’t getting a really good review had it not been for the curiostiy of what sauce was being reviewed? That’s my two cents. Oh and CaJohn, you mean you actually have made a bad sauce? I don’t believe it.
I am like CaJohn, I don’t want or need to know the reviewer.
I don’t care to see the label until the end. If I knew the label before hand probably wouldn’t read the review in its entirety. Nice review concept.
I really liked the review style and I have some suggestions to make it better. I work for a post office that is tucked away in a business district, and sometimes people have trouble finding us the first time around. Well of course, it doesn’t happen the second time around because they know where to find us.
1- As for finding out first or last what kind of hot sauce is being reviewed, well we all know where to look now, so it doesn’t matter to me. If I was one who wanted to see what happens the end of the book, I will turn to the end of the review and see before I read on. Simple.
2- I think the reviewer would better off being served knowing either the ingredients or what kind of sauce they are reviewing, ie-cayenne, jalapeno, habanero, naga, etc. If you have ever had a sip of a drink and thought it was something else, you might have done a double take and went whoa that tasted strange. I think it is always a plus to know what you are tasting ahead of time. It also lets the reviewer cook/prepare food that will work well with that type of sauce. Some hot sauces don’t work with certain foods, we have all been witness to that in our lives.
3- I think the mystery of who is doing these reviews is fine, but maybe you can let us know once you have done these particular cycle of reviews. You can rotate the review team so it changes each cycle of 4-5 hot sauce reviews, and let us know at the end of each cycle.
Just my 2 cents, but I enjoyed this style which shows everyone has different tastes. I don’t think this has ever been discussed, but since each person likes a certain kind of music, certain kind of smells, and certain kinds of favorite colors wouldn’t it suggest that our sense of taste is unique as our chromosomes are. I don’t want to get too deep with all my red-neck friends on here who rather keep it simple :P, but I think each person’s palette is as unique as they are in their appearance and their fingerprints. If you have ever liked something so much and when someone tells you that they hated the same thing, you might be shocked to hear that type of reaction to something you cherish. At least in these form of reviews we can see how different our tastebuds react to the same product. Licorice/cloves? Too salty? Tanginess? You wonder which taste is closest to our own.
Thanks Nick.
Nick Lindauer on 11/18/2007 at 8:20 am said:
Buddah - Don’t thank me - thank Chris, this is his brain child.
Thanks Chris. 
I don’t care to see the label until the end. If I knew the label before hand probably wouldn’t read the review in its entirety.
My point exactly Big Dawg. It’s a long read. I skip a lot of reviews because what I see visually doesn’t appeal to me. Especially brown tape wrapped bottles.
Blind testing the sauce by the reviewers is all fine and dandy, but my main point was about the “Blinding” of the reader. And I still don’t like the anonymous aspect of the writers. They deserve recognition for the review, good or bad. If they don’t have the balls to give an honest review for a sauce even if it is bad, then they shouldn’t be writing reviews anyway.
Nick Lindauer on 11/18/2007 at 8:20 am said:
Buddah - Don’t thank me - thank Chris, this is his brain child.
Two years ago. What took so long?
But I think Buddah was thanking you more for using the multiple reviewer format than for the “blind” aspect of it. That part I gave a thumbs up on as well.
I’m sorry if I come across a bit bitter on the subject, but the review format here on the HSB has been a matter of discussion for quite some time as evidenced by the fact ChrisK made the recomendation for blind tests two years ago. But to see things finally changing only because of proven methods (multiple reviewers) used elsewhere irks me just a little. Instead of Buddah thanking you or ChrisK, I think you need to thank him. He’s been involved in the multiple reviewer format elswhere and has been pushing for it here for a while now.
Now, before everyone jumps on me, I want to say that I’m glad to see a format that most everyone can agree on being used. It needs tweaking for sure, which is why I pointed out some things. But the ultimate goal is to be fair and unbiased, correct? This is a step in that direction. It’s about time.
Ok, I’m done, flail away!
DK on 11/18/2007 at 9:13 am said:
I don’t care to see the label until the end. If I knew the label before hand probably wouldn’t read the review in its entirety.
My point exactly Big Dawg. It’s a long read. I skip a lot of reviews because what I see visually doesn’t appeal to me. Especially brown tape wrapped bottles.
Blind testing the sauce by the reviewers is all fine and dandy, but my main point was about the “Blinding” of the reader. And I still don’t like the anonymous aspect of the writers. They deserve recognition for the review, good or bad. If they don’t have the balls to give an honest review for a sauce even if it is bad, then they shouldn’t be writing reviews anyway.
Two years ago. What took so long?
But I think Buddah was thanking you more for using the multiple reviewer format than for the “blind” aspect of it. That part I gave a thumbs up on as well.
I’m sorry if I come across a bit bitter on the subject, but the review format here on the HSB has been a matter of discussion for quite some time as evidenced by the fact ChrisK made the recomendation for blind tests two years ago. But to see things finally changing only because of proven methods (multiple reviewers) used elsewhere irks me just a little. Instead of Buddah thanking you or ChrisK, I think you need to thank him. He’s been involved in the multiple reviewer format elswhere and has been pushing for it here for a while now.
Now, before everyone jumps on me, I want to say that I’m glad to see a format that most everyone can agree on being used. It needs tweaking for sure, which is why I pointed out some things. But the ultimate goal is to be fair and unbiased, correct? This is a step in that direction. It’s about time.
Ok, I’m done, flail away!
You made it way to easy. Self flagellation is the best recourse.
Hey Willy, good to see you again.
I might have been the one that has been waving the banner the last few months on the multiple review format but it is far from my idea and I don’t need credit. If one car company builds a safer car, I wouldn’t attack another company for adding similar features to their cars. Any change for the better shouldn’t be met with criticism, it should be met with open arms. The more unbiased reviews whether it be here or another fine website just makes for fine reading and a more knowledgable Chilehead. Which I think the reviews should be about, and is why I keep reading them.
Maybe of these reveiws should be done in the same manner that the Comsumer Report does their reveiws. They have been successful for
many years. (They don’t wrap cars, etc) just an honest evaluation of facts.
This sounds like the grading for a BBQ cookoff. Covering a bottle and we know it cannot be looked at!!!
A bottle with no label makes sense, just a number.
I might have been the one that has been waving the banner the last few months on the multiple review format but it is far from my idea
I never said it was your idea. Just exactly what you said. You’ve been pushing it here harder than anyone. You do deserve thanks for that Buddah.
Oh please. You didn’t invent the multiple review format and neither did we. This “chest beating†on who started what first has got to stop.
Reread my statement Nick. No chest beating or claims of starting anything. It was a general statement about the format being used elsewhere, that’s all. My first argument towards the format started in the forums (Boiler Room) with a statement concerning movie reviewing. I certainly take no credit for the multireview format. As for who started it in the spicy foods world, I have no clue. I do know that there are other sites out there that have been using it and pushing it because of its viability as a fair and informative format. I was just making a statement to that fact, that’s all.
But even so - Thanks to Buddah & everyone that has championed this idea through and thanks to the reviewers for participating in the “Russian roulette†of hot sauce reviewing - this will be interesting, that’s for sure. And thanks to Joe & Linda from TheHotZoneOnline.com - as far as I’m aware, they are the original multiple reviewers of spicy foods on ‘hot sauce blogs’ as far as I know.
On this I agree.
My last comment on this. Please go back and read reviews (3each) and as a consumer use these reviews to make a good choice of the best!!! In reality you will need to buy all of them to decide for yourself.
No comments as to what is the best one/ best buy.
Each one: I like it/I don’t like it/ This is great(will the consumer like it)
Good on Chicken/Good on Pork/Good on Fish(Which)
I don’t like color/ I like color? /To red(who cares)
To thin/ to thick/ Could be better( Who decides this)
Tell Me: Information that pretains to all people-Heat- How does it pour- How does it stick-What is the basic of Sauce- What is this
sauce made to be used on (recommended)
I really don’t care if Joe Blow likes it or not—Will I–So tell me all the facts that a sauce has and I’ll decide if I should buy it.
Thanks I am Gone.
I’ll be interested to see if any of the big names are brave enough to send there sauce in to be reviewed. I like the blind aspect to it.
And for the record, CaJohn makes some great sauces and on other hand he makes some sauces I wouldn’t feed to my neighbor, but again thats my taste….
I think some people are becoming full of themselves and it’s starting to get old……. Look at yourself before you toss stones at others.
This probably makes no sense, but ask me if I care!!!!!
Anthony your still a tool 
BLANE on 11/18/2007 at 10:58 am said:
I’ll be interested to see if any of the big names are brave enough to send there sauce in to be reviewed. I like the blind aspect to it.
And for the record, CaJohn makes some great sauces and on other hand he makes some sauces I wouldn’t feed to my neighbor, but again thats my taste….
I think some people are becoming full of themselves and it’s starting to get old……. Look at yourself before you toss stones at others.
This probably makes no sense, but ask me if I care!!!!!
Anthony your still a tool
Best comment you have made in a long time!
I agree with you on almost all points!
Cheers!
DK, I am revealing myself as being reviewer #2. Just for you, my little Swamp Honky! Oh, and BLANE, it takes a tool to know a tool.
Gildo on 11/18/2007 at 12:40 pm said:
DK, I am revealing myself as being reviewer #2. Just for you, my little Swamp Honky! Oh, and BLANE, it takes a tool to know a tool.
Thanks Gildo! You’re so sweet! Thanks for coming out of the closet! 
I have an unbiassed question here. ..Why is it NOT OK for a manufacturer to publish a review as him/herself, but it’s OK for a manufacturer to post a review on anothers product while hiding behind a curtain? Brings up the question of WHO can you really trust?
Someone without a puffed up ego please answer this for me.
BTW, Glad to see that Nick understands the term “Chest Beating”… He’s heard that one before.
Tracy C on 11/18/2007 at 1:16 pm said:
I have an unbiassed question here. ..Why is it NOT OK for a manufacturer to publish a review as him/herself, but it’s OK for a manufacturer to post a review on anothers product while hiding behind a curtain? Brings up the question of WHO can you really trust?
Someone without a puffed up ego please answer this for me.
BTW, Glad to see that Nick understands the term “Chest Beating”… He’s heard that one before.
Who’s hiding behind a curtain?
My opinion? It Rocks !!
I like the blindness for both reasons: Reviewer cannot have any preconceived ideas or favoritism for a particular maker. This is sauce, just the sauce and nothing but the sauce.
The reader wil not prejudge a review based on say, ” that guy from Toronto”, or hey, he’s reviewing a competitors sauce, “I’m not going to read it”. This is the review, only the review and nothing but the review.
Keeping the product secret untill the end just makes it more fun.
Arizona Jack on 11/18/2007 at 3:39 pm said:
My opinion? It Rocks !!
I like the blindness for both reasons: Reviewer cannot have any preconceived ideas or favoritism for a particular maker. This is sauce, just the sauce and nothing but the sauce.The reader wil not prejudge a review based on say, ” that guy from Toronto”, or hey, he’s reviewing a competitors sauce, “I’m not going to read it”. This is the review, only the review and nothing but the review.
Keeping the product secret untill the end just makes it more fun.
Gildo, he’s talking about a manufacturer reviewer being able to do a “blind” review anonymously.
There are some that are opposed to manufacturers doing reviews, but have shown support for this format without caring to know the identity of the reviewer. If one of the reviewers turns out to be a manufacturer, then does that mean manufacturer reviewers are fine as long as we don’t know who they are?
Hiding the reviewers name just makes it easy to keep the issue of manufacturer reviewers quiet. Hence the “veil”. Not that it is on purpose, but a valid point for sure that should be addressed. Just another good reason to publish the reviewers name with the review. It’s all about being accountable for what you write.
I feel like the guy who forgot to pour water on the campfire and the wind stirred it up and whoosh the whole forest is on fire. 
What have I done?
DK on 11/18/2007 at 5:15 pm said:
Gildo, he’s talking about a manufacturer reviewer being able to do a “blind” review anonymously.
There are some that are opposed to manufacturers doing reviews, but have shown support for this format without caring to know the identity of the reviewer. If one of the reviewers turns out to be a manufacturer, then does that mean manufacturer reviewers are fine as long as we don’t know who they are?
Hiding the reviewers name just makes it easy to keep the issue of manufacturer reviewers quiet. Hence the “veil”. Not that it is on purpose, but a valid point for sure that should be addressed. Just another good reason to publish the reviewers name with the review. It’s all about being accountable for what you write.
DK your constant knit picking about all the reviewing is bordering on OCD! Maybe you should come out with a book on how to wrestle gators and write reviews!
DK on 11/18/2007 at 5:15 pm said:
Gildo, he’s talking about a manufacturer reviewer being able to do a “blind” review anonymously.
There are some that are opposed to manufacturers doing reviews, but have shown support for this format without caring to know the identity of the reviewer. If one of the reviewers turns out to be a manufacturer, then does that mean manufacturer reviewers are fine as long as we don’t know who they are?
Hiding the reviewers name just makes it easy to keep the issue of manufacturer reviewers quiet. Hence the “veil”. Not that it is on purpose, but a valid point for sure that should be addressed. Just another good reason to publish the reviewers name with the review. It’s all about being accountable for what you write.
Hmmm! Is it OK for Manufacturers to do blind reviews? I was number 3, but I’m not poking my eyes out for anyone!!!!
HenryK on 11/18/2007 at 10:17 am said:
Maybe of these reveiws should be done in the same manner that the Comsumer Report does their reveiws. They have been successful for
many years. (They don’t wrap cars, etc) just an honest evaluation of facts.
I think that is what we were doing before we got our eyes poked out.
As far as you all coming out of the closet, your style gave you away long before you decided to step forward. I had my ideas about who you were. I will say you are consistent with your previous reviews. Just why did you feel you had to “out” yourself? It kind of makes this sort of review pointless for the future.
Amen on Joe & Linda of HZOB, they have been doing multiple reviews since they started.
Blane, your neighbors don’t eat sauce…
CaJohn on 11/18/2007 at 8:58 pm said:
As far as you all coming out of the closet, your style gave you away long before you decided to step forward. I had my ideas about who you were. I will say you are consistent with your previous reviews. Just why did you feel you had to “out” yourself? It kind of makes this sort of review pointless for the future.
Amen on Joe & Linda of HZOB, they have been doing multiple reviews since they started.
Blane, your neighbors don’t eat sauce…
I respectfully have to disagree that me outing myself makes this sort of review pointless for the future. I’m very flattered by your remark that our style gave us away long before we decided to step forward. I guess that means that they are somewhat memorable? Good or bad. So thank you. Future blind reviews may or may not be done by me or the other two reviewers and I really don’t think that most people will be able to determine that Gildo was one of the reviewers. The only reason I let everyone know that I was reviewer #2 was because there seemed to be much criticism about the blind reviewers hiding behind a veil. I have too much integrity to be accused of that. I stand behind every word I pen and I am completely unbiased in my opinions. It seems that some people on this blog have lost sight of what this is all really about. Hot sauce. That’s all. Just hot sauce. It’s really simple and uncomplicated if you just let it be. But for some reason there are people who like to muddy the waters and make controversy when there doesn’t need to be. That’s really too bad.
But for some reason there are people who like to muddy the waters and make controversy when there doesn’t need to be. That’s really too bad.
Make controversy? So stating my honest opinion is so wrong? I’m sorry if it goes against the grain, but I’m gonna say what I think. I won’t sugar coat anything just for the sake of staying away from controversy. I stated my opinion on how I feel about the subject. I have reread everything I have written and stand behind it 100%. All I’ve done is disagree with certain aspects of the review. In case you missed it, I actually agree with some of it too.
Interesting read, format, and I have to say I like the concept. Now carry on, I’ve got no dog in this fight.
DK on 11/18/2007 at 9:13 am said:
I don’t care to see the label until the end. If I knew the label before hand probably wouldn’t read the review in its entirety.
My point exactly Big Dawg. It’s a long read. I skip a lot of reviews because what I see visually doesn’t appeal to me. Especially brown tape wrapped bottles.
Blind testing the sauce by the reviewers is all fine and dandy, but my main point was about the “Blinding” of the reader. And I still don’t like the anonymous aspect of the writers. They deserve recognition for the review, good or bad. If they don’t have the balls to give an honest review for a sauce even if it is bad, then they shouldn’t be writing reviews anyway.
Two years ago. What took so long?
But I think Buddah was thanking you more for using the multiple reviewer format than for the “blind” aspect of it. That part I gave a thumbs up on as well.
I’m sorry if I come across a bit bitter on the subject, but the review format here on the HSB has been a matter of discussion for quite some time as evidenced by the fact ChrisK made the recomendation for blind tests two years ago. But to see things finally changing only because of proven methods (multiple reviewers) used elsewhere irks me just a little. Instead of Buddah thanking you or ChrisK, I think you need to thank him. He’s been involved in the multiple reviewer format elswhere and has been pushing for it here for a while now.
Now, before everyone jumps on me, I want to say that I’m glad to see a format that most everyone can agree on being used. It needs tweaking for sure, which is why I pointed out some things. But the ultimate goal is to be fair and unbiased, correct? This is a step in that direction. It’s about time.
Ok, I’m done, flail away!
ummm how long have those other site been around?
DK on 11/19/2007 at 12:23 am said:
But for some reason there are people who like to muddy the waters and make controversy when there doesn’t need to be. That’s really too bad.
Make controversy? So stating my honest opinion is so wrong? I’m sorry if it goes against the grain, but I’m gonna say what I think. I won’t sugar coat anything just for the sake of staying away from controversy. I stated my opinion on how I feel about the subject. I have reread everything I have written and stand behind it 100%. All I’ve done is disagree with certain aspects of the review. In case you missed it, I actually agree with some of it too.
DK, I wasn’t pointing a finger at you or anyone in particular. Just a comment.
thetruth on 11/19/2007 at 7:41 am said:
ummm how long have those other site been around?
Longer than this review.
Gildo on 11/19/2007 at 9:02 am said:
DK, I wasn’t pointing a finger at you or anyone in particular. Just a comment.
Yep. Me too.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Smilies - HSB Rules & Regs - Spamtastic?
Fantastic review!!!! I’m sure it was much more difficult to coordinate, but it is well worth. Great job (but bad sauce apparantly). Hopefully this reviewing style will be the norm.